Ron Paul: Putin's Crimea Invasion "Has Law On Its Side"

The West will claim "everything Putin does is illegal," but while Ron Paul notes "he's no angel," the former congressman adds Putin "has some law on his side." America has a right of secession and Crimea should have it too - "it's such a facade," Paul explains, noting that "contracts, and agreements, and treaties" linked to the Sevastopol base provide Putin with a legal basis to militarily occupy Crimea, "Russia could accuse America of occupying Cuba because it, too, holds a lease on the land around the Guantanamo Bay prison."

Paul goes on to note the hypocrisy of the West and alleges US and European participation in the overthrow of Yanukovich... and for good measure discusses Diane Feinstein, the CIA and spying...

Dr. Paul is correct. Putin does seem to have the law on his side. There is a legal framework that seems to favor a Crimean secession and has its genesis in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244.

1244 was the legal basis from which Kosovo was able to split from Serbia. At the time Russia, among a few others, argued against Kosovar independence. Kosovar independence was supported by the U.S., the U.K., France, Italy, and Germany, and most of the other states of the EU. In Feb. 2008 Kosovo declared independence and, despite objections from Russia and Serbia, the US and EU granted Kosovo recognition.

Although the issue of self determination is still debated on the international legal stage, and each case is sui generis, Putin has taken the lessons learned through a loss on the Kosovo argument and used it to his advantage.

Yes, and a whole country (Serbia) was bombed over it. At least a 1,000 civilians died. Military losses were never revealed. NATO thought it would take 48 hours for Milosevic to give in but it took them 78 days during which not only military targets were bombed but also civilian structures such as hospitals, open markets, commuter trains and random houses in random villages. A whole infrastructure of a country was destroyed illegally because the campaign was not approved by the UN-SC. You see, Serbia did not give in and NATO didn't like that so shifted its campaign from military targets to civilian ones.

Not defending Milosevic for he cracked down on Albanian insurgents hard but after he pulled back Serbian troops and police from Kosovo the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Roma and moderate Albanians started with the low point the kidnapping of Serbs and moderate Albanians in order to harvest their organs and sell them on the market. You would think that these perpatrators would be hunted down and brought to justice right? No, they were not. NATO used cluster bombs and depleted uranium of which people -especially in Kosovo- are getting sick. The first FKOR unit consisting of Italians are apparently now also getting sick and dying.

After the campaign the biggest US military base (Bondsteel) was built in Kosovo supposedly to guard Kosovo from these pesky Serbs but the real reason is to guard the Caspian an Black Sea just like Crimea can be used for that. And that is where the whole story of Kosovo and Crimea comes together, people.

Oh, and the legal basis of the Kosovo independence is not UN resolution 1244. That resolution approves the stationing of a military international force called UNMIK. The declaration of independence is actually against international law and Kosovo has not been recognized by the EU but by 22 out of 28 members of the EU with countries such as Spain and Cyprus for obvious reasons not recognizing.

If there is any legal basis (but it is not) it is the verdicht of the International Court of Justice in The Hague which concluded that the adoption of the declaration of independence of the 17 February 2008 did not violate general internationl law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence'". And that is now being applied to Crimea because this verdict means that anybody can declare independence, even your neighbour down the road and his cat.

EDIT: the independence of Kosovo is actually based on the Ahtisaari plan. The plan considers Kosovo to be a 'special case' thereby implying that before international law some are more equal than others.Reality on the ground of course is that 95% of the population in Kosovo is Albanian who don't to have anything to do with Belgrade. But the majority of people in Northern Kosovo are Serbs who don't want to have anything to do with Pristina. Are they also a 'special case' now?

The ruling of the ICJ was stupid. It means that anybody now can declare independence. That doesn't make the independence legal but the mere deed of doing so is not illegal. They opened Pandora's box with this.

Here are some interesting facts about the conflict in Kosovo:

Until 1997 the Kosovo liberation army (KLA or UCK) was on the list of terrorist organizations of the US. In 1998 is was off, in 1999 Serbia was bombed. Sources say that the KLA was trained, financed and supplied by certain intelligence agencies. The KLA killed Serbian cops and officials to which Milosevic so brutely replied to. Former members of the KLA are supposedly now fighting in Syria.

In Rambouillet NATO made Serbia demands they could not accept such as the unhindered access by NATO forces to all installations whether they are civilian or military in Serbia. Effectively this is an occupation. Ironically, Germany made the same demand more or less back in 1914. Back then also Serbia did not comply. No country would. Even Kissinger said that this demand was wrong.

During the campaign against Serbia, Russia sent a unit from Bosnia to the airport of Pristina. When Wesley Clark heard of this the ordered the now famous singer James Blunt (who was a captain in the British army at that time) to engage them. The British superior to Blunt ordered him to stand down and told Clark "I am not going to start WWIII for you". Clark was supposedly sent into retirement over this but now has business interests in Kosovo and Romania.

Lesson from all this is that there is no such thing as international law, just the international law of the strongest.

And the parallel here is guess who was used as NATO assets and fought along side the Muslims in Kosovo. You guessed it UNA-UNSO aka Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian National Self Defense a major paramilitary group that is running the government in the Ukraine and was the militant moltov cocktail fighting contingent of the Euromaidan protests they consist of groups like Pravyi Sector aka Right Sector and their political wing is the Svoboda Party aka the neo-nazi seig heiling, goose stepping Stephan Bandera holocaust worshiping individuals. They've been long term NATO assets used by defense contractors like Britam to fight dirty wars for NATO like in Kosovo, Lithuania, South Ossetia, Chechnya.

This is not speculation all that has been well documented and out in the public.

And the best part is jews or joos have no problem with these people.

See here for pictures with Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nudelman Nuland hanging with seig heilers along with another prominent jooooo and central banker who just happens to be the 'acting' Prime Minister Aresiny Yatsenyuk.

A prominent former central banker who is backed by the 2nd richest oligarch in the Ukraine Victor Pincuk who happens to be another jooooo who just happens to have strong ties to people like Soros, Clintons (hint NATO and Kosovo), European Foundation Center and the Ukrainian Grantmakers Forum and a partner of Yalta European Strategy. We collaborate with the Clinton Global Initiative, the Brookings Institution, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Open Society Institute.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen criticized Russia on Wednesday for pressuring Kiev not to sign a free trade pact with the European Union, a move that triggered mass protests.

Ukraine, caught in a tug-of-war for influence between Moscow and Brussels, has been rocked by protests since it walked away from the EU association deal two months ago. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Mykola Azarov resigned and deputies rolled back anti-protest laws to try to defuse the crisis.

"An association pact with Ukraine would have been a major boost to Euro-Atlantic security, I truly regret that it could not be done," Rasmussen told le Figaro daily.

I'm sure all this shit is just paranoid tinfoil hat conspiracy coincidences.

Who threw the first fucking punch again and who did they want associate with when the first punch was thrown?

On the occasion of the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos we organize the Davos Philanthropic Roundtable in order to foster the growth of philanthropy in Ukraine and throughout the world.

The Philanthropic Roundtable is organized each year to bring together the world’s most renowned philanthropists and leaders from politics, the business community and the non-profit sector. It debates state-of-the-art approaches to problem-solving and seeks to inspire the new global philanthropists of the future.

It's probably a good comparison. I bet the price of sex in New York compaered to the price in Cuba is comparitive to the price of sex in Russia comapred to the Crimea. And that, my friends, is consumer price 101.

Technically though, the law is on Crimea's side, Putin is just an opportunist, waiting patiently for this moment.

Still don't think he will invade, but if he does, he'd get permission and pen agreements with the local authorities in the "upper east side" before doing so. A bloodless coup is always better than a bloody one.

Doesn't the treaty guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity? On what grounds can Putin surround and harass Ukrainian military bases? Maybe he doesn't respect or recognize the new government. All the more reason to support talks dialogs and elections. This sweeping in and annexing the place is pure opportunism.

show me the law which hasn't been ratified by brute force? all this law, democracy and freedom bullshit is for feebleminded. only 'rule of law' there is, is by brute force and if people don't start to comprehend and exercise it, then they have no right to complain other than to enjoy their servitude.

Putin may be a thug but the whole world is being run by thugs and criminals. Putin just happens to be better at it than most. It is not Putin being worshipped but he just looks better compared to Obama. It is all relative.

- If in Kiev was an armed criminal coup: then Turchynov, Yatsenyuk and other is criminals. They should be arrested and prosecuted.- But if in Kiev was an people's revolution: then this is now a different country, for which Russia, USA, EU, Crimea and Donetsk dont have any legal or constitutional obligations.

If you are a lawyer, you should understand that Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union after the revolution - it is different state.

And if you're not a lawyer, you should not try to use propaganda from faux news, as legal norms.

Ron Paul tells the truth, ok, but he's not a politician anymore, and HIS son sure as hell isn't speking up an telling the truth.

Funny how they can tell the truth, post election, where they never again have to face an electorate.

Ok, ron paul has a captured audience here on ZH, cuz essentially we all Be "LIBERTARIANS", of the hate-gubmint breed, that said, I just wish Ron Paul, would kick Ran Paul in his AIPAC and help his son find his Ball's to up against McCain, and Lurch.

In fucking PUBLIC.

Also I don't know how many missed but in the last election, in Texas the TEA party got there asses KICKED, so its clear that TEA PARTY has been permanently destroyed as a USA brand by AIPAC.

I'd suggest you go watch Rand's speech at CPAC last weekend about the NSA and then later read his article on breitbart about how Ted Cruz and the GOP misrepresent President Reagan (An article Michael Reagan said proved "Rand got his dad"). Anyway all that seemed to go unnoticed here on ZH and I can't help but wonder why... I thought both the fight with Cruz and Paul killing him on Britbart and the speech against the NSA were pretty big events but again, nothing on ZH. I don't think Rand is as bad as the haters make him out to be. Of course he isn't Ron but he's our only hope.

Rand is fine . People should leave him alone. He's shrewd politician who learned from his dad's expereince that you have to play politics to avoid forever being in the self righteous minority. His dad got maybe 10%-not even close to be a real player. He's careful how he words things. That doesn't always play well with Liberty minded , intelligent people. 90% of the people are sheeple who sense things are really wrong, but still can't figure out the truth. he appeals to their basic instincts and insecurities -he just has to be careful so he is not branded as a radical Israel hating bigot, which is exactly what the media would like to convince people he is. He is smart. he is shrewed. he is honest. Don't bash rand. realize what he is doing. realize the fine line he is playing to stay a serious contender.

"America has a right of sucession???" Only in the "Confederacy Lives!" adled brains of wingnuts in the Tea Party and oddballs like Paul. Remember that thing called the Civil War? (Hint: It was fought because the South had no "right" to leave the US.)

Under Ukraine law, Crimea doesn't have that right either. But who cares about stuff like "law," when like Putin and Paul, you can just make "rights" up!

I don't know what Paul is rambling on about, I don't like Obama, but this apologist backlash is out of control. First up Putin doesn't care about Crimea, hardly a repressed area, he is about to invade greater Ukraine. Crimea is a tactical play, ports, airfields are a strategic importance to apply pressure onto the eastern side eg Estonia, Romania and Vlad's Carpathian mountains.

Disappointing Paul, I thought you were against military expansion, imperialism and aggression.

Yea no shit its tactical. But the bottom line is Crimea is less than 3 days from voting to join the Russian Federation. That is the democracy American leaders pretend to love so much. A naked women is just throwing herself into Putin's arms. How does that make him the bad guy? If he moves on to other parts of Ukraine, well, then you have a point but we are not there yet

In Chechnya already has been a referendum. And People said: "Together with Russia."Are there any questions?

If you were literate person, then you would know that Chechnya has never put forward demands to secede from Russia. Because Chechnya can not be an independent state within its borders. It sees and understands any fool who saw topographic map.Even Dudayev was demanded for Chechnya only special conditions as part of the Russian Federation.You should read more history, but not propaganda from faux news.

" Chechnya already has been a referendum. And People said: "Together with Russia." "

in soviet union we had approval rate of 99,99% in every election. you don't change the society and the rules how it's run just by announcing new federation instead of union. how come all of you complaining west has rigged election but when you look east, where military is rolling the streets, everything is just fine.

i rest my case, it's pointless. just watch out for those three places. of course not because for the coming referendums. LOL

Before you criticize the Soviet Union or Russia, look at the regime of military-police dictatorship in the United States, where people are deprived of the right to elect the President.And then look at the fascist regime of military-police dictatorship in Kiev, where rebel who seized power through mass murder and deceit, are now refusing to conduct any election. LOL

cut the binary shit, please. i know the western establishment well enough and i have never justified any of it. in fact, until ukrainian coup i was most adherent basher of it but i see no reason to further nurture the echo-chamber ZH has become.

No, I'm not Russian. I am Ukrainian. But I, like the majority of Ukrainians, will always be against the Nazis and their criminal accomplices. It does not depend on the location of the Nazis and their accomplices: Kiev or Washington. The Nazis are the same everywhere.

No, an individual state does not reserve the right to secede unilaterally when it ratifies the Constitution and joins the Union. Your link has a statement that the Supreme Court has not ruled out the possibility of "divisibility by revolution" or by "consent of the States". Revolution is, of course, not political or lawful. Consent of the states is not unilateral. I think the Constitution does contemplate states leaving the Union through some mutual act of agreement, but the federal government would have to agree to yield its sovereignty in the territory of the state for the state to lawfully secede.

- If in Kiev was an armed criminal coup: then Turchynov, Yatsenyuk and other is criminals. They should be arrested and prosecuted.- But if in Kiev was an people's revolution: then this is now a different country, for which Crimea and Donetsk dont have any legal or constitutional obligations.Checkmate.

Appeal to force. If might makes right, the why was the Holocaust "bad?" Why was Hitler "bad," while Stalin was less "bad" Hmm...Einstein? Why was Saddam "bad", while Bush/Barry are less bad? Didn't think this through, in your morally relativistic, cognitively dissonant haze, did you.

If the former Republik of the Untied States was such a great idea, why was it necessary to force the South to remain....by ENSLAVING 100's of thousands of men, in a war that history books have painted as being about freeing slaves?

The outcome of the use of force, is the exact opposite of the stated intent. Hope you enjoy Chains.

You do not understand the main differences between Hitler and Stalin.Hitler killed people on a national basis, that is, Hitler was a Nazi.Stalin killed people along class lines, that is, he was an internationalist and communist.

America does not have a "right of secession". By ratifying the Constitution, each state has ceded some sovereignty to the federal government, which cannot be unilaterally recaptured by right. Even if you think President Obama is violating the Constitution by breathing, the remedy is not secession.

If it requires the consent of the Congress, it is not a right of the states. A right is something you have without anybody else's consent. For example, you have ownership rights in your property. If another attempts to take your property, you can have a court enforce your ownership right against the will of the other. It is your right. The states have no such right to secede.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The states do have a right to secede and I suggest you reflect in the 9th and 10th amendment. If that doesn't help then reflect on another important document in U.S. History, more specifically this line:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

The Declaration of Independence is not law, and it does not confer any rights on the States. Upon ratifying the Constitution, the States agree to the Supremacy Clause, which states that the U.S. Constitution is superior to every state law and constitution. By ratifying the Constitution, states confer sovereignty on the federal government, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and they agree that the powers outlined therein are vested in the federal government, and are superior to any state law or constitution. There is no right reserved to recapture that sovereignty, and nothing in the U.S. Constitution allows a state to divest the federal government of its sovereignty by right.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To put it simply: it is not codified in the constitution that the federal government can prevent a state from seceding, therefore if it is not against the law if the state, the people have the right to secede.

As far as the Declaration of Independence not being law, I never said it was, but it's foundations hold true today.

The Supremacy Clause is the codified portion, not subject to the exceptions of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, that prevents states from seceding by right. The state agrees that the powers outlined in the Constitution are within the sovereignty of the federal government, and are superior to any piece of paper a state can produce. Therefore, a state cannot by vote, resolution, constitution, or any process of law, assert a right of secession that is superior to the federal powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments do not nullify the Supremacy Clause.

First, the Constitution was scrapped by Hanoverian/zionist traitors beginning 100 years ago, including every president and representative since FDR. Read the Supreme Court decisions.

Second, Jefferson's views on changing constitutions describes this fact, that the DoI is the legal foundation of the nation he created. As an imperfect blueprint to accomplish the rights to life, liberty and property declared in the DoI, in theory the Constitution can be changed or replaced without losing its context, because the DoI is the law of the land.

This country is so infiltrated with spies, traitors and brainwashed casualties, our enemies would love to change our Constitution to enslave us again. The UN is designed for this purpose, to take away our soveriegnty, shackle us and restore feudal tyranny worldwide.

We are equal only if we are all free. You are free or you are not free, no exceptions. When some people have more rights and privileges than others, its tyranny. When the State owns your property, its absolute tyranny, slavery, because you are State property. When you lose the right to protect your property and your liberty, you are a slave.

I am my own Soveriegn. I don't owe anyone anything. You can measure the extent of the corruption by how far the current practices violate this inviolable principle.

You are correct about the Constitution. Don't expect a lot of Constitutional scholars to show up and back you up around here. Most people on ZH (right, wrong, or indifferent) just post to be funny or mean. There are some who know what they are talking about...you just have to figure out who they are. :)

Well, given that they held that Blacks are chattel, abortion is a right guaranteed under the constitution under the basis of privacy but actual privacy is not protected, and that the limited power to regulate commerce among the several states actually means the right to regulate non-commerce that occurs wholly within a state, and that a penalty can also be a tax, why should anyone give a a well cooked fart what the SC says?

Maybe it isn't, but its not really "certain". I think the link to the US Code, on the .gov website, which says it is organic law makes it questionable, one way or another.

As Justice Brewer of the Surpeme Court put it in Gulf, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897), "it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence".

All of this legal stuff is subserviant to the people, the people are not subserviant to the law/government.

No, the remedy is secession, but not by the states... too many welfare recipients, including the state itself. Individuals, the ones who actually produce have to find a way to reject this. Not many of us left- Can we do another tea party? I ain't hopeful.

Oh yeah, there IS an elected government in Ukraine that legally removed the former President, and voted for the current Prime Minister. Everything done in the change of government so far has been done according to Ukrainian law. Thugs and Russians in Crimea are choosing to ignore the legal government in Ukraine because... they speak Russian.

Surprising considering there were thugs with bats around when the vote was taken and most parliment members have a habit of pressing absentee member's voting buttons. I guess the thugs with the bats were from Blackwater and didn't speak or read Russian so they didnt know what buttons to push etc...

yrbmegr, Where did you get that? My understanding was that the parliament refused to depose him, and then did so after the protests grew. A government doesn't have the right to govern without the consent of the governed. The Ukranians protested against their government, then Yanukovich fled, then elections were announced to be held soon, then Russia moved into Crimea, then Crimea pretended that they have their own parliament that can vote for whatever they want (which they don't).

Kiev is still the seat of government in Ukraine. Not Crimea. If Crimea has declared independence from Ukraine, then let's see if Ukraine lets them go or starts a civil war.

Where is your proof beyond pure conjecture? After the failed US supported Orange Revolution in 2004, Yanukovych a rotten statist, was still "elected". As there are no more bogeymen in the world and Putin already outflanked the Amerikan government on Syria, hell hath no fury like a US state department scorned. Read between the lines. Become a good economist in the Bastiat since and see that which is unseen, not simply that which is seen. Democracy is simply mob rule. Amongst 10 people, 6 people vote to take 4 people's property. Why is that legitimate? Just because someone is compelled to feel you up or take your shit, doesn't make it legitimate. Quit following the neo-con talking points and understand culturally and historically what's going on. Your lack and knowledge and understanding of what secession is/means, is pure innovation on your part. Go listen to the Nuland tape. Go learn about Svoboda and the Social National party in Ukraine. Putin is certainly no saint and gets no pass for the things he's done, but this western propaganda has reached fever pitch and it's the last ditch efforts of a declining hegemon. Since you're too lazy to research BEFORE you post, I'll post links for you:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)http://ericmargolis.com/2014/03/vlad-the-bad-steals-a-march-on-the-west/http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-diplomat-victor...

Ukraine's parliament has no right to unseat President. Parliament can only hold impeachment proceedings in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. Impeachment was not carried. Therefore, your personal opinion on the legality of the rebels, is not legally justified. That is, this is only personal delirium from housewife who understand zero about the law and legislation.

By the way, the Kiev criminal rebels already have refused to hold elections. They postponed the date of elections for an indefinite term. Because they know that they are not legal for majority and so they are afraid of fair elections.